Talk:300 (film)/Archive 5

Public Reception
The public/user scores of Imdb and rotten tomatos keep getting removed, I think what the PEOPLE thought instead of just a handful of critics is required for this article LIE ALL THE OTHER FILM WIKI PAGES! Stabby Joe 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with using online polls is that they are not evenly distributed. The data is unreliable.  For instance, 300 had 2,000 votes on IMDb.com before the film even came out; it's extremely doubtful that they are all from people who saw the screenings.  There's no editorial oversight to ensure that the poll is appropriately randomized. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to IMDB's Weighted Average Ratings they have a methode to reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing'. IMDB rating is also mentioned in many Wiki film articles.(Shahingohar 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC))


 * It's not just that. The voting process is one where viewers approach to add their vote.  I don't know if it's necessarily slanted toward the Net-savvy demographic.  The ideal poll would be a random survey of those who have seen 300, not just on the Internet, but among the general populace.  I'm more comfortable with the box office performance reflecting what the masses thought of it, especially if it's backed by a measurement in how much the revenue drops by the second weekend and beyond.  For instance, films like The Sixth Sense and My Big Fat Greek Wedding (drawing from my own knowledge here, sorry) had very consistent weekends, which reflected the strong word-of-mouth among audiences.  Something like the Matrix sequels, though, saw a big drop in the revenue due to audiences not being as satisfied with them as they were with the first film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, it has over 50,000, not 2000 votes and secondly if what you say about polls is true then how come most if not all other film wiki articles state user reviews and polls like Imdb including featured and good class articles!? If so they you're going to have to go through all even the featured articles and remove info thats used alot to state what films are good. I don't want to make anything sound like a conspirisy but this article seems to be dominated by those who DIDN'T like the film 300, like the boards at Imdb even though most people so far did like it. Stabby Joe 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally tend to add IMDb and RT polls to add to box office. WikiNew 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't tend to add info of that sort to an article, being wary of how polls can be manufactured, manipulated or otherwise distorted. I seem to recall the subject of the reliability of polls coming up in the WP:Village Pump a couple of times. I didn't really follow it, and don't know what, if any results came from it.
 * StabbyJoe has pointed out that many FA articles do list Imdb poll information in them, but only poll info, as Imdb is far too unreliable in any other WP sense of the word.
 * When writing articles, most journalists include the most reliable information first and conclude with the least reliable (yet verifiable) information last. I think we should apply this method to the information from Imdb about 300, which happens to coincide with those FA film articles using poll info.
 * WP info doesn't have to be true; it must be verifiable. Information contesting it can be added, so long as it is verifiable as well. The WP article on Imdb notes the practice of vote stuffing, and | claims to have methods to filter skewed results out (without explaining them). I think the imdb information should stay, but in accordance with its dubious nature, be placed at the very end of the section relating to it, to quantify its relative lack of weight. This would seem to be in accordance with WP practice. Arcayne 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What is a good article?
(the following is lifted in its entirety from WP:FA?. It is presented here, because I want our contributors to take a good, hard look at the article and see if we are ready to apply for Good Article status. Articles over a certain length are advised to use the criteria for FA instead. Please post your comments after this area, under the temporarily blank section headers below.) -Arcayne 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A good article and featured article have the following attributes.


 * 1) It is "well written", "comprehensive", "factually accurate", "neutral" and "stable".
 * 2) *(a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.
 * 3) *(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
 * 4) *(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are attributable to reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. See the attribution policy for information on when and how extensively references are provided, and citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
 * 5) *(d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).
 * 6) *(e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
 * 7) It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
 * 8) *(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
 * 9) *(b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
 * 10) *(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
 * 11) It should have images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. If fair use images are used, they must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.
 * 12) It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * Well-Written, Comprehensive, Factually Accurate, Neutral & Stable?


 * So far as I can tell, all statements are thoroughly referenced, and all references employ appropriate templates. Some very minor remarks: some authors are cited in "last, first" form, others simply with the "author" field. Should this be standardized? There's also some ambiguity regarding which citations employ the "news" template and which employ the "web" template. --Javits2000 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Complies w/the WP:MOS?


 * Complies with WikiProjects?


 * Are the images appropriate, with succinct captions and tags?


 * Is the article of appropriate length and on target?

Preview
Arcayne, can you please prove your claim that the "when critics/reviewers see a movie ahead of the public, this is called a preview showing"(Sorry. it is not clear to me). The article says: "USA TODAY asked Paul Cartledge, author of Thermopylae: The Battle that Changed the World, who has seen a preview of the movie," --Aminz 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I could, but I cannot cite myself.I used to review movies for a college university newspaper. When there were reviewer screenings, called previews or preview screenings, it meant that they were not open to the general public. For example, there was a preview screening for 300 at Chicago's Navy Pier on February 27th. I know, because I won tickets to go and see it. It was called by the media in atendance (and the PR people, sometimes called 'media wranglers' - lol), who asked us to "tell our friends after this preview screening that you thought it rocked!" I didn't necessarily thought it rocked, but I do think it rolled somewhat. :) Arcayne 05:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be possible to find a real ref for that somewhere on the internet. Worth a look.  The Behnam 05:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is this query referring to? The word "preview" appears nowhere in the article. Cartledge might have attended one, or the producers might have sent him a DVD; in either case I can't see how it matters. --Javits2000 10:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he was defining preview as being an excerpt, and was concerned that Cartledge had seen only a small bit of the film, ie. in the way that people (with far too much time on their hands) can see a preview of an upcoming tv show on their cellphone. Of course, that term is applied differently in media circles, in much the same way that the word 'boom' or 'tear sheet' mean different things in- and outside of this circle. -Arcayne 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

90% accuracy
Does anybody have a clue how the director came up with this number? I am saying this because the very accounts we have from ancient times have certain degrees of uncertainty ignoring how this film is presenting them. --Aminz 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed in many of the archives, Aminz. Snyder was wrong. It was inserted because someone wanted to use it as a springboard for the historical accuracy section. Warner Bros. clearly said that it wasn't meant to be accurate. And since the article is about a film that is only semi-historical, we aren';t really relying on sources from ancient times. The source of the film was a comic book, not a textbook or the original Herodotean manuscripts. Arcayne 06:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "90 percent" is probably best understood as a figure of speech here, meaning "for the most part." Compare the Yogiism, "Baseball is 90 percent mental. The other half is physical." I doubt it's based on any calculations. --Javits2000 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the way the historical accuracy section is done doesn't add anything to the article. It's all, author X thinks it's accurate, but author Y doesn't. That doesn't tell you anything. IMO, the section should give specific items from the movie and note that are based, or not based, on history. For example, we can list the quotes from the movie that are historical: "Come and get them", "Then we will fight in the shade," "Because only Spartan women give birth to real men," and so forth. Kauffner 13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the section as presently consituted gives readers access to a range of opinions from professional historians, and allows them to form their own judgments. Of course we can't "tell" readers whether it's "accurate" or not. A laundry-list of minutiae would be, in my opinion, far less useful, and would in essence constitute an open invitation to OR. --Javits2000 13:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now, it's a literature review which focuses on the subjective impressions of various authors. The article should be about the film. Kauffner 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Reception" is by definition an account of subjective impressions. I would be very pessimistic about our ability to produce some "objective" evaluation of the film's historical accuracy. The possibility of such an account would depend upon the availability of an incontovertible account of the events and customs in question, which is hardly ever at hand when it comes to ancient history. And I see no way of attempting to produce such an account without descending into a blow-by-blow: the agoge is presented as x, but was actually y; the Persians are shown wearing x, but actually wore y; this statement is drawn from Herodotus, this from Plutarch; this one is cited in context, that one out of context, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. This would a) open the door to endless debates over the history and customs of ancient Greece and Persia, which are not the subjects of this article; and b) make for exceptionally tedious reading. IMO.  --Javits2000 15:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We could compare the account of the movie with Herodotus, who is almost the sole source for Thermopylae itself (whether he is a credible source belongs in the article on the battle, and anyway I gether the movie is worse on those things on which he is doubted,) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would submit that those who find the subject of historical accuracy to be "exceptionally tedious" need not read this section, or, more bizarrely, contribute to it. Daryaee's article is about how great the Persians were and Hanson's article is about great the Greeks were. After reading them, I wonder if either one has even watched the movie. Kauffner 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to your wit, good sir, your suppositions regarding the two historians and your musings thereof would appear to be OR. Perhaps you could simply make a point, please. Arcayne 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, more precisely stated, I would find the cataloguing of minutiae "extremely tedious"; the more interesting question, which also happens to be the major question that was posed of the film by the professional historians whom we've cited, is whether the film has succeded in capturing a certain worldview, or in representing the social and political structures of Sparta and Persia.

But in any case, that was only point "b." Point "a" remains: namely, that so much regarding the specific customs, apparel, etc., remains open to dispute, that to attempt a comparison is essentially to invite debate over those subjects (the realia) which are massively off-topic, esp. for a film that is characterized by its director as an "opera".

The suggestion that we compare the film with Herodotus is interesting. Earlier (archived) I expressed reluctance about comparing Daryaee's statements with Herodotus, since he explicitly cites other sources (e.g. cuneiform documents and modern studies of demography) in his account. But Herodotus is certainly our only source for the narrative of the battle itself. There are a number of public-domain texts of Herodotus online, and this one conveniently gives only those sections that relate to Thermopylae. I would suggest that, if this were of interest to people, we could incorporate a link to the text, thus facilitating access and allowing readers to make the comparison themselves. --Javits2000 09:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For example, at this point under "historical accuracy" -- "Military historian Victor Davis Hanson, who wrote the foreword to a 2007 re-issue of the graphic novel, states that the film demonstrates a specific affinity with the original material of Herodotus..." -- we could provide a link to said material. --Javits2000 10:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldn't have a problem with linking the link to the Herodotean (is that even a word? - lol) text, as I do think there are errors with the factual account.
 * That said, I think it is worth emphasizing a simple argument against dwelling overmuch in the inaccuracies - it was a construct of the film that Dilios be the source of the tale of the 300. We are seeing the movie through his descriptions. Of course, we are going to see the Spartans as masterful, elegant and economical in their ruthlessness. Of course, we are going to see the Persians portrayed as fops, monsters and of unwholesome aspect? Of course, the actions of the other non-Spartan Greeks portrayed as not nearly as important as the Spartans. The tale is being told by a Spartan, and while Dilios is quite the Chatty Cathy, he is also a just a soldier, with a soldier's need to inspire the troops. That Dilios is the narrator from start to finish is not concealed; in fact, in cutaway scenese, we see him describing around the campfire all the lurid details of the story. This is why I think the historical accuracy section, while noteworthy, doesn't deserve all the juice some feel it deserves. This movie continually reminds me of Braveheart in how it twists historical events, and is essentially a tall tale. It's like trying to point out costuming, portrayal and historical issues in Black Knight or Time After Time; they are secondary to the story being told. Arcayne 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I too oppose a nitpicking approach. Most of the movie is fiction, so a comprehensive list of inaccuracies would be both long and patronizing. The positive should be emphasized, highlight the things in the movie that are historical or almost historical. Kauffner 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that doing that would be interpreted as preferential treatment. The article contains wikilinks to the BoT and other pertinent historical subjects, which I think allows for the exploration of the histoircal underpinnings of the subject without interfering with the article. We have to remain neutral, and simply focusing on the movie seems the best course of action here, avoiding all the Crazytown stuff about costumes, buggery and blobby ax-for-hand freaks (which begs the question - how did the guy play the violin??) Arcayne 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
1. The article is too long. Nominate for peer review. 2. It is semi protected. Criteria requires no edit wars. 3. This film is too new. Wait 60 days and re-nominate. GreenJoe 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree regarding the stability, it's hardly overlong and is already being reviewed, and being new is not a reason to object. WikiNew 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That, and it was nominated ahead of schedule -- from what I gather, at least. Did the guy who put it up for nom even alert anybody, aside from putting the template at the top? María: ( habla  con migo ) 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Length should not be an issue, especially considering the extra content that has resulted from the film's controversy. The article has already undergone a peer review, and your inability to notice that makes me concerned that you even reviewed this article closely. The semi-protection can be removed, as it was added due to IP vandalism prior to the film's release.  In addition, "too new" is not a criteria for a Good Article.  If you want to deny this film article a GA status, at least specify just exactly what kind of stability issues do exist.  As a whole, the article is extremely intact, with periodic discussion about expanding on the historical and political matters of the film.  I highly suggest that you re-evaluate your decision. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've renominated it. WikiNew 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Length is a major part of the criteria. Trim it down if you please. GreenJoe 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We've cut down the plot quite a bit, and most film articles near 50 KB. WikiNew 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's double what the criteria states. Criteria says 25 KB. Nominate it for feature article if you like it so much, but it doesn't meet GA criteria. GreenJoe 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You do not know how to evaluate articles. The GA criteria clearly states that it's acceptable to nominate long articles for candidates with the LONG tag if it is over 32 kb.  Film articles are not supposed to have the cut-off of 25 kb.  Considering that the film has reverberated more strongly in public with its box office performance and its controversy, the extra length should be acceptable.  We've also done our best to keep this content succinct. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to sound rude, but so what? GA is GA nonetheless. WikiNew 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * GreenJoe, you've only just joined the WikiProject for GA today, and until today it seems you have had little experience with passing/failing GA candidates (according to your history, correct me if I'm wrong). I highly suggest you re-check the criteria before doing any more pass/fails.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 18:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would submit that you are interpreting the size criterion incorrectly, GreenJoe. I discovered, while porting the GA requirements over to this Discussion page that articles under 25Kb uses the GA criteria for evaluation, whilst longer articles needed to apply for GA status utilizing the FA requirement criteria (which is listed above). Presumably, this is to allow for the greater depth of the article due to size, Perhaps a revisiting of the article and the listed requirements page might be helpful. Arcayne 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll consider that I could be wrong. I tell you what, I have a few errands to do, I'll be happy to look over the FA requirements when I get back in an hour or two. Is that an acceptable compromise? GreenJoe 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * NO! No, a million point three times, NO!... lol, of course it's okay, GreenJoe. I am sure we all appreciate you acting on the nomination as quickly as you have, and in accordance with WP:BELLY, we hope that this errand-running helps matters. As Maria suggested, you might want to consult with another admin regarding the relative qualifications for other GA articles. Arcayne 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, why is the article still semi-protected? It should be noted that we have not been experiencing edit wars -- if by "edit wars" one understands ongoing disputes regarding major issues of content or organization, and not simple oversight and vigilance against vandalism. --Javits2000 18:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. You don't have to be an admin to run through GA criteria and pass articles. You just can't have contributed to the article significantly. Anyway, let me get the FA stuff, and go through it. Keep in mind though the stability of the article is still a concern. GreenJoe 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reconsideration based on FA criteria

 * 1) It is well written.
 * 2) It is comprehensive.
 * 3) It is factually accurate.
 * 4) It is neutral.
 * 5) It is not stable. In the last 2 days alone it has been edited a significant number of times.
 * 6) Introduction meets the manual of style.
 * 7) Has proper headings.
 * 8) The table of contents, IMHO, is overwhelming.
 * I could overlook this since it's not that big of an issue. GreenJoe 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

GreenJoe 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is appropriate length.
 * 2) Images meet appropriately with criteria, though we would like to see images that can be used under the GFDL vs fair use.
 * Not possible being a copyrighted film, unless someone was there on set and took photos of Butler on a blue stage, which is highly unlikely. WikiNew 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a major issue, and not something to fail it on. It's just something to strive to. GreenJoe 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, 8 or 9 out of 10 seems pretty good. As most of the edits occurring seem to be from people wanting to add material already mentioned, I'd say we have a weiner here. Commence the streamers and dancing girls - and make us a GA article. :) Arcayne 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you don't have a winner. You do. But I can't pass it until it's more stable. GreenJoe 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Of course, as long as the article is (as was noted by the nominator) the 3rd most visited on the English site, it is to be expected that it will receive a number of edits. May I ask if stability here is to be understood simply as number of edits (many of which are minor, or simple vandalism, quickly reverted), or overall stability of content and form? --Javits2000 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The GA criteria says this about stability:
 * 5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.
 * GreenJoe 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection normally implies vandalism. This article attracts both fanboys and Iranian (and I suppose Greek) nationalist anons. This should not be a GA disqualification.
 * The length criterion is a statement that short articles are eligible for GA; not a statement that long articles aren't. (The assimilation to FA standards is a non-consensus folly by the people who are making GA a broken process, but that's another topic.)
 * GA has never required consensus; it requires two editors, and no consensus against. If it did require consensus, it would be identical with FA, and deprecable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No edit wars for ages. WikiNew 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Today alone there have been approx 26 edits, none of them minor. To me that isn't stability. If you have new material to add, add it, then renominate the article. It says right at the top of the section to nominate films that new films shouldn't be nominated as they will automatically fail. GreenJoe 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't edit wars. Merely copyedits. The article has stayed in a consistent manner for a long while. WikiNew 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, here's a 48-hour diff. --Javits2000 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Make darned sure it remains stable. It can always be revoked. GreenJoe 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers, mate! --Javits2000 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail
Is this addition really necessary? It's clear that the king goes against the Oracles; it shouldn't be important to get in the details. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Going against the law is very different from going against some advice.--Patrick 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It was my impression that Leonidas' reasoning to the council members was not supposed to be convincing. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is about the second part of my addition. You can add some clarification.--Patrick 01:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your point, Patrick, but in the interests of brevity, we need to keep it to the point. :) We do appreciate your attention to detail, though. Arcayne 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack: Message For The Queen - independent source
Ok, I found an independent confirmation of my claim. The music director of the Macedonian Radio Vancho Dimitrov, and the macedonian composer and producer Vladimir Petrovski-Karter both agree that the music of the soundtrack is a complete copy of the macedonian folk song Zajdi Zajdi. A link to the article in Spic, macedonian daily newspaper. Here is a translation of the key sentence from the article:

"The instrumental introduction of the soundtrack is identical to the second portion of the song "Zajdi zajdi", where the lirics "my youth, of ye forest, will not return" start. - Vancho Dimitrov, composer and music director of the First Program of the Macedonian Radio.

Further in the article the journalist will contact Ivan Sarievski, the grandson of Aleksandar Sarievski, the composer of the song, and ask for his reaction/interview.

So I suggest we publish the following text:

The melody of the soundtrack "Message For The Queen" is exactly the samesource with the melody of the Macedonian folk song "Zajdi Zajdi Jasno Sonce". Although regarded as old folk song, "Zajdi Zajdi Jasno Sonce" is actually composed by Aleksandar Sarievski, a famous singer and composer of Macedonian folk songs. The melody of the soundtrack "Message For The Queen" is exactly the same1 with the melody of the Macedonian folk song "Zajdi Zajdi Jasno Sonce". Although regarded as old folk song, "Zajdi Zajdi Jasno Sonce" is actually composed by Aleksandar Sarievski, a famous singer and composer of Macedonian folk songs. --GoranStojanov 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, that's exactly what we needed, and I can vouch for the article. I would suggest a slightly different text, at the close of the current "soundtrack" section, without the extraneous links and with proper citation format, as follows:


 * Commentators have also noted that the melody of "Message for the Queen" is identical to the song "Zajdi, zajdi" by the Macedonian composer Aleksandar Sarievski.


 * Goran, would you mind checking if the transliteration is correct? It would be for Serbian, but I don't know if there are any phonetic differences btw. the two languages. --Javits2000 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I agree with the modified text. Transliteration needs few minor corrections. It should be "film za SpartancitE". Do you want me to post it, or will you post it? --GoranStojanov 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, sorry, I got lazy there at the end. Why don't you go ahead and post it -- you've certainly fought hard enough for it! Best, --Javits2000 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Excellent work, Goran. Cheers! Arcayne 14:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Thank you for your help. --GoranStojanov 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank Miller's opinion
There doesn't seem to be much in the article about what Frank Miller thought of the film, or whether he thought it followed his own ideas or themes. Can we add something? Magic Pickle 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, if we had a source. On the other hand he was a producer, so I'm guessing he had a fair amount of input. --Javits2000 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Spartans were notorious Boy-lovers
In his column of March 23, 2007, advice columnist Dan Savage points out the irony of Leonidas sneering at the Athenians as "Boy lovers" while in historical reality the Spartans were the most notorious boy-lovers of the ancient world.

Dan Savage is of course right, and it is preposterous to deny his point.

Furthermore, it is important to note this, as the movie relentlessly makes the propaganda point that the super-macho heterosexual Spartans are superior to the effete and efeminate Iranians, even going as far as taking off the King of King's beard. Erudil 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point the film isn't intended to be historically accurate, being a Spartan's camp fire tale. WikiNew 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I second this notion. Paragraphs and paragraphs could be written on what was accurate or not in 300.  The mention of boy-loving is hardly at the top of the list.  Like Wiki-newbie said, it's a graphic novel that took creative licensing in adapting the battle.  It's not the gospel truth about what has gone before. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that aside from our personal opinions on the criticism, it shouldn't be added simply because we are trying to be concise and do not need to report every single criticism out there. The Behnam 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that Dan Savage, while undoubtedly a smart guy, is hardly a professional historian. --Javits2000 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, he's a gay sex advice columnist; he's not even a film critic. If we include this guy, what's next? María: ( habla  con migo ) 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See the article Spartan pederasty right here in Wikipedia, and its 25 scholarly footnotes. The movie should not be allowed to get away with this major inaccuracy without even any discussion. Erudil 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the article. It is already mentioned (numerous times) that the film is not meant to be historically accurate.  There are a plethora of differences that we could find between this artistically created film and its historical counterpart, I'm sure, but this is not the most notable or contributive difference to mention. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet alert! WikiNew 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, Das Baz is just signing his comments with "Erudil" for some reason. Like you with WikiNew/Wiki-newbie and me with Erik/Erikster, but this is a big difference, obviously. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked him to sign correctly on his talk page before his latest comment, but obviously the guy is not in a listening mood. María: ( habla  con migo ) 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's odd. But I'll try to state the point against as clearly as possible. No one's denying there was institutionalized pederasty in Sparta. The point is rather, as we've often discussed here, that "historical accuracy" can't turn into a catalogue of minutiae, pro or con; instead we've made the decision, by consensus if I'm not mistaken, to limit it to evaluations of the film by profesional historians. Note that these address the broad themes of the film, like freedom vs. tyranny, and not finer points, such as (as have been raised here before): military apparel, famous quotes, Xerxes's hairstyle, etc. Something that comes up once in the film, in a toss-off line, is clearly too trivial. In any case, Leonidas just calls the Athenians "boy-lovers," which is as accurate as calling the Spartans "boy-lovers"; to turn it into an instance of "inaccuracy" you have to infer that he's claiming that the Spartans are not. Too fancy. --Javits2000 17:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I thought it was the Thebans that were paired lovers-warriors. Boy love? In ancient Greece? Shocking. Arcayne 17:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If this article gets too long, feel free to start the article Historical accuracy of the film 300.--Patrick 00:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the problem, though. The film does not purposely pride itself on being 100% historically accurate, it prides itself on being close to a comic book.  It would be unencyclopedic to draw at length the undoubtedly countless differences between the film and its actual historical event. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it'd be one thing if there was anything in the movie about 'boy-loving', the film doesn't have to show every part of the culture. It'd be silly to add this, like others have said -- where do you stop? LilDice 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Millions of people see this movie and do not read history books. Big Lies are propagated and perpetuated. This is not good.Erudil 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, Das Baz and Erudil are one at the same. Not a secret. Neither is there anything sinister about it. It's just that I'm not very deft with code-names and other computer technical matters. Erudil 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not rocket science; all you do is put four "~" after your comments, as it tells you to do below the Save Page button. I've also reminded you of this (twice) on your talk page.  It helps other users identify who is saying what.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's their problem they don't read history books, but I think this article makes the point clear this is myth, not fact. Alientraveller 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also let's not think that ancient Persians and Greeks had the same values and fashion styles as modern societies. What was manly then may not be now. Plus the free Greek historians/philosophers originated the smear campaign -- that is inaccurate name calling. Xeres was a very smart man who assembled his empire with the equivalent of 1970s glam metal bands image building. His Immortals were literally thought to be immortal because Xeres was able to conceal casualities with seamless masked replacements. I know that many accounts say Xeres heightened his reputation as a God via unusual appearance (rainment and makeup). I wasn't there and no photographs exist nor even painting survive. So we don't know what appearance or appearances he adopted. But I wouldn't be surprised if the addition of Xeres with a traditional beard is a case of later historians smoothing out conflicts between Islam and Persian historical pride -- very much like how European Christians began depicting Christ as European over a thousand years ago. 69.23.120.164 01:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On to FA Consideration
How long do we remain at GA status before applying for FA status? Of course, we should resolve any issues that remain. After GreenJoe's comment abou the edits and the like int he article, I placed notices (thanks for catching the misspelling) in the edit page for each section askingthe contributors to bring their potential edits here first, so as to make sure the topics haven't been dealth with before by concensus. This should cut down on informed addtions, as people not pushing a point will see the notice and bring proposed change suggestions here (like Goran did - again, awesome job!). What else needs doing? Arcayne 18:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A DVD section, Awards and the full box office run. WikiNew 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. So, just time, then?
 * ps-found this, which might be helpful. Arcayne 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no length of time involved. We just need to ensure that the article meets FA standards.  Personally, I think the overall prose could be improved to have stronger flow.  There are also one/two-sentence paragraphs, which are usually frowned upon.  FA-class articles usually have fuller paragraphs, so this means we need to tie the points together in a way that will transit smoothly.  There's probably other things we can do to continue improving the article.  Well, stability is an issue, i think it's even more likely that people would want to wait until the film is done with its theatrical run before even considering this article's nomination. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording change in Persion Reaction section
I would like to propose changing: "As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes is portrayed as androgynous. This is designed to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army." to "As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes is portrayed as androgynous.Which critics suggest is designed to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army." It might seem trivial, but unless the film maker or Miller is commenting on why the Persians were drawn that way we should make it clear it's a critic's opinion on it. LilDice 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that something needs to be done about these sentences; at present we're making a claim about authorial intent, as LilDice suggests. The exact edit proposed wouldn't work, as the second sentence is incomplete, but I've stared at those sentences a couple times and haven't come up with anything better. --Javits2000 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. WikiNew 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned that the cited reference doesn't actually sugest that, and connecting the two (although apparent) might itself be OR. Arcayne 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I read it, it does contrast the two, though it calls the Spartans gay as well....LilDice 23:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to edit the first sentence for excessive comma use:
 * The opening of this sentence needs to be changed from "As in the graphic novel" to "In contrast to the graphic novel". In the graphic novel, all the Persians are portrayed as normal humans, not demonic in the least bit, and physically they are not drawn that much differently than the Spartans (tan-skinned and ethnic looking).  I challenge you to pick up the graphic novel at the book store--there are NO monsters in the Persian army; the Persians do not slaughter an entire village or kill people barbaric manners (in contrast to the book's Spartans, who really do impale enemies on spikes and build a wall of bodies).141.211.129.250 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.211.129.250 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Since its opening, 300 has attracted controversy over its portrayal of ancient Persians. Various critics, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have denounced the film.

Any opinion one way or the other?Hewinsj 01:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am always too generous with my comma use, such as here, and here, and here. I don't mind if you edit out inappropriate comma usage; could you perhaps show what the edit would look like after? Arcayne 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the after. I can take a look at the whole section though and see if anything else has been missed.  Hewinsj 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I only saw 2 things I would change in the first two paragraphs. Revisions listed here to be compared to what's currently up:
 * "Since its opening, 300 has attracted controversy over its portrayal of ancient Persians. Various critics, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[1] have denounced the film. As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes is portrayed as androgynous.[92][93] Critics have suggested that this is meant to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army.[94]"
 * "Film critic Dimitris Danikas has suggested that the film portrays Persians as 'bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies,' writing that the filmmakers 'are stroking [sic] racist instincts in Europe and America.'[72] American critics, including Steven Rea, have argued that the Persians are a vehicle for an anachronistic cross-section of Western stereotypes of Asian and African cultures.[95] Dana Stevens of Slate points out that as the 'bad guys' the Persians are depicted as black people, brown people, homosexual, handicapped and/or deformed in some way.[83]"
 * Hewinsj 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. If no one objects by tomorrow morning, I vote to make the changes. Thanks for being a comma witch. :) Arcayne 04:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, just something I try to fix if I spot it while I'm reading. I made the change, and it's hardly noticible. Hewinsj 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better to change the second sentence as follows :" Many Iranians were outraged and various critics, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government ..." (Shahingohar 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I don't know if I like using the word Iranian twice so closely together, but that could just be my inner monolouge. In either case minor edit couldn't hurt, so I'd allow it. Hewinsj 17:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use it twice either, as it interrupts the flow of the text. There is a grammatical phrase for it (that utterly escapes me now). As well, there was already reference for the response of the Iranian people (though outrage seems a bit OR). Because of these reasons, Shahingohar, I think the proffered alteration isn't necessary. Arcayne 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I insist in adding it since the first line is infact a lead for this section and should summerize the section. It is not OR since Time article starts with "All of Tehran was outraged". There is no need to mention the reference here since Time article is mentioned in the next paragraph. I will change it as follows to avoid using Iranian twice : Many Iranians were outraged and various critics, journalists, and officials of the Iran's government including President ..."(Shahingohar 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Let's not insist. Could you instead explain why the addition is important? --Javits2000 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree, as insisting implies a more personal intent. I've removed the changes you made to the article until the actual discussion reaches a resolution. That is what concensus is. Majority opinion that follows WP standards will be what determines a statement's inclusion in the article. Please respect that. Arcayne 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your concerns, OR and repeated words, were resolved and that's why I edited after a while. It is better since it gives better underestanding of the section. Do you have any reason for your disgreement other than relating my insist to personal intent ?(Shahingohar 23:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Actually, buddy, they weren't resolved. There is no need to repeat the information that is related in another place as well. You alluded tot he Time article. Well, its there. I do not see the need of repeating the same word to state the same point already made. It seems like overkill. Overkill seems like POV. I am not going to say it is POV out of respect, but I think that it might be perceived as such. I do not think the alteration should be included, as it is unnecessary bloat. Arcayne 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus the verb in the sentence is "denounce," which is usually used of public statements -- which makes sense for critics, journalists, and officials, but not as an expression of some general sentiment of outrage. So the sentence is about something other than the "street" -- it's about responses in the public sphere. In any case, if we really need a "lead" for a subsection, the first sentence as it stands is fine: "Since its opening, 300 has attracted controversy over its portrayal of ancient Persians." --Javits2000 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to argue more than this. You don't have a good reason and disagree only because I used the Insist word. The whole second sentence is repeated later but it is good since it is giving better underestanding and I just wanted to complete it. And the verb in the article is outrage. (Shahingohar 23:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Not going to fault you for being bold, but I will say that I'd be careful using a word that indicates such extreme emotion based on a newspaper or magazine headline. Such headlines are intended to grab the attention of the reader, but taken out of context a word like that could make the situation seem much worse than it actually is.  Is there any chance a thesaurus could help settle this? I don't have anything invested in this one way or the other though, I just stopped in to clean up some grammar. Hewinsj 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I agree with your reasoning. I suggest upset or angered (Shahingohar 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I don't have a problem with either of those. Hewinsj 12:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoroughly confused. Earlier we were discussing modifying the sentence, "Various critics, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have denounced the film." The "people" don't fit in here because a "denunciation" is an act in the public sphere, not a gauge of "street" sentiment. Are we now to say that Ahmadinejad was "upset"? And more importantly, what difference would it make, besides muddying up a perfectly clear sentence? I fail to see how this "is giving better understanding," and I imagine it would probably just get edited out when someone goes through and proofreads the whole thing for FA. --Javits2000 13:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no. Sorry guys it has been a misunderstanding. I wanted to do a minor edit and I started badly and now it seems it is a big deal. I am not going to say Ahmadinejad is upset. This how I wanted the sentence to be: "Many Iranians were angered and various critics, journalists, and officials of the Iran's government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have denounced the film". As I said before I don't see any reason to push it anymore. After all you have more experience it Wikipedia and know better what is good for the article. (Shahingohar 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Link Suggestion: "The 300 Savages"
Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to suggest adding the following link to the bottom of your page "300 (film)" on your website wikipedia:

By Dr. Samar Abbas. *** http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1324.html
 * "The 300 Savages at Thermopylae: A Response to the Hollywood Film '300'

This article provides scientific refutation of the various historical misconceptions of the film, and I feel your readers would benefit by reading the above said article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.251.140.35 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I would be fine with it as an external link. Actually, I'm surprised that there aren't many supplementary links besides the generally linked stuff.  I'd like some backing of the writer's credentials, though -- the fact that his e-mail is Hotmail isn't very convincing.  Is this published anywhere more official, like at an .edu extension? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As would I. It's an interesting article, though I didn't miss the inherent bias (Alexander the Accursed? Guess I went to a different university). We would need to establish the provenance of the good doctor's title and institution. That way, we know why his opinion was sought out, and of what weight we should afford it. Arcayne 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it's completely nuts, and more an attack on Greek culture than a critique of the film. So, we get the vague statement that "the film portrays the Iranians as paying no respect for human life." Then we get a bunch of irrelevant (and misleading) remarks about human sacrifice in ancient Greece. He quotes discredited genetic scholarship (Arnaiz-Villens), to demonstrate that the Greeks were "Negroid"; goes on a completely irrelevant tear about the Byzantines (citing, yes, Carl Sagan), and concludes that the Greeks were "barbarians" and "savages." I know we're not considering it for use in the article, but I feel it's without merit.
 * Alexander the Accursed is a Sassanian cognomen; later he becomes Iskandar, via Dhul-Qarnayn, and ends up in Nezami. But that's another story. --Javits2000 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't link tripe like that to the page. It is completely ridiculous and barely about the movie.  It even associates it with antisemitism, which is just really stupid.  What is with this crap about the "Irano-Semitic" world? "Hellenomaniac historians"? This thing is just low quality Greek-bashing and I don't see it at all having more merit than Daryaee or even Farrokh's works.  It doesn't even deserve a link in the external links section.  Sorry.  The Behnam 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on a lack of response regarding the author's credibility and the other editors' stances, I've stricken out my statement of acceptance. I only skimmed it initially, but re-focusing my attention, the language does not seem to make an objective analysis. I do want, though, for there to be supplementary links to be provided for analyzing the film and how it relates to its historical background. It could be a "content fork" explanation to use for new editors, since we want to keep the content about the film's controversy succinct. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also added an article by HowStuffWorks (originally posted it on the talk page a while ago, but no one made use of it). Is there any issue with the supplementary content that it provides? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(feeling pretty dumb for not noticing all the problems with the good doctor's article-sorry, all). The HWS article is noteworthy in that it speaks directly to the interpretation of Xerxes, which could be placed in either Production, Historical accuracy or Depiction of Persians sections. I'll recreate it below for the ADD folks:

''Rodrigo Santoro, a Brazilian actor, was chosen to play the imposing, Persian ruler Xerxes. Historical depictions of Xerxes with a wavy beard and tall hat went out the window in favor of the scary shaven, pierced and chain-covered creature in Miller’s graphic novel, with an otherworldly voice to match.'' ''“Zack told me he wanted the movie theater shaking, so he asked me to speak in as low a register as possible, and he would enhance my voice in the computer to make it echo,” says Santoro. “I tried to portray him as not human. He’s a creature. He’s an entity. So that voice fits, filling the room, together with 7 feet tall and all that.” (He’s actually 6’3”.)'' -Arcayne 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool link all around. I can see fitting this bit into either Production or Depictions, not sure which would be more appropriate. --Javits2000 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Influence on Popular Culture
Or internet culture. It's a film that already has over 9,000 memes. It's huge on the web. There's an article with more detail on it on Encyclopedia Dramatica. I do believe that the 300 (film) article needs to at least mention this phenomenon.Ealgian 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the guidelines for using Internet memes in articles are. Have any memes been successfully placed in articles of Featured status?  Additionally, is it really ultimately notable?  How is it supposed to be gauged, that 300 is more of an Internet phenomenon than something like Ghost Rider or Pan's Labyrinth?  The addition seems unnecessary unless it can be determined that the scale actually means something notable. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, if it's important culturally it will be published somewhere, until then relax. LilDice 04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I do know that Encyclopaedia Dramatica shouldn't be the inspiration behind inclusion of something. The Behnam 04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess Ealgian should likely explain why this is particularly noteworthy. I mean, I get the cultural impact of certain memes ("where's the beef", "| go ahead, make my day", "I'm the Decider" "all your base are belong to us", etc.). However, these memes are similar to opportunistic bacteria in that they survive by spreading as far as they can as fast as they can. They tend to become bad clichés almost without warning. Speaking personally, I would prefer if the final article submitted for FA consideration didn't have the literary equivalent to a Members Only jacket. Arcayne 04:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Encyclopedia Dramatica was not the "inspiration" for anything, including my suggestion, nor do memes need to be "succesfully placed" in Featured articles for memes to be notable. I noticed the 300 meme issue because I'm part of various art online communities, and I know that the "THIS IS SPARTA!" has spread around like wildfire (or, as it's now referred to, "THIS IS MEME!"). The 300 meme mainly appears in graphics, whereas the memes Arcayne mentioned are usually used in conversation. So yes, this is just from personal experience, although if you go on art community websites, you will not find many, if any, Ghost Rider or Pan's Labyrinth memes. I do believe that it'd make sense to wait a while for this to further develop, but I would like to add that there have been various articles published on 300 that have "This is Sparta!" as the article title. I'm referring to the "professional" sources, (example: USA Today) and not just blogs and chatrooms. Ealgian 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * After all that talk about memes, I did say a section on influence on popular culture would be appropriate. It's a film that's been noted on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report multiple times. The Snakes on a Plane article includes "Parodies and References in Popular Culture," which is close to what I was thinking of. The memes were simply the most readily apparent. Ealgian 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to determine whether or not this film will have long-lasting impact on popular culture. The film hasn't even been out a month. The "classic" films -- The Godfather, E.T., and so forth -- have been repeatedly referenced long after its release. To assume the same of 300 seems to be too proactive. Though I don't doubt that if Epic Movie came out later, 300 would've been satirized in it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree somewhat, but again, the Snakes on a Plane article does have such a section, and it isn't that ancient of a film, either. Ealgian 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True dat, but Snakes was essentially a one-trick pony, and without Sam Jackson's trademark epithets, it would have been as direct-to-DVD as Barbie on Ice. Honestly, I don't really find any real value to the inclusion of a meme that might become as dated as a box of uncooked trout in a few weeks. Arcayne 02:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the last time that I'm repeating that this isn't about a meme. This is about influence on pop culture. And I've already said that it's good to wait.Ealgian 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Post production tools and special effects
Why is Maya, Realflow and one specific special effect of blood mentioned? If there were 10 studios, then many tools were used such as Lightwave 3D "from the ocean and armies to spears, arrows and shields that the guys held and threw" found at http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/03-15-07a.html If one special effect is mentioned, where do we stop? I say remove product placements such as mentioning Maya and realflow or give all products equal billing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.68.46 (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Interesting case. (And a change of pace from the disputes about historical accuracy!)  I'm trying to determine the best way to approach this, as I don't usually come across the specific kind of software films use for their effects.  Should we remove all reference to special software usage, or should we be all-inclusive in regard to the tools used? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that if the software is specifically mentioned in the various Making-Of videos, then it's fair game, so long as we aren't marketing them. I remember that the article you cited before described the blood spurting like 'tulips losing their petals in zero gravity' or some such thing - an interesting turn of phrase. As the comic uses blotchy blood spattering as a technique, and the film has overwhelmingly tried to recreate the comic, some attention should be made to illustrate the pointed attention to the fluid mechanics of blood (ick). Arcayne 04:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The link speaks to this:


 * But according to Watts, “ We shot with very little actual blood because we had a limited production schedule and shooting with blood can really multiply your shooting time by a lot, and we didn’t want to have a lot of photorealistic blood in the movie—it would have gotten us an NC-17. So [Grant Freckleton, the VFX art director] designed what we call 2-D blood: we splattered coffee onto napkins, photographed it and did some digital processes on it. We shot a lot of blood as elements against blue screen to comp in but we used very little of it because at the end of the day the 2-D blood looked a lot more like the comic book and we could use a lot more of it without agitating the ratings board. The makeup people kept asking me when we were going to use blood. They had gallons of fake blood but we never used it.”


 * The blood is a distinctive part of the film's aesthetic -- not just in the battle scenes, but in the credit sequence as well. So I think it's interesting to know how it was created. The specific software packages are mentioned because they're in the article that's cited; no "product placement" was intended. But I can understand the point, and I suppose we could say "various computer programs" and leave out the list if it seems somehow inappropriate. Better that than tracking down and citing all the software that was used. --Javits2000 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Repetition
I was skimming the article, and noticed that Dana Stevens (writer for Slate) pops up twice with full name and journal affiliation. What is the policy regarding the re-identification of a reviewer in two separate categories? Is it even necessary that their comments are used in two separate categories? Arcayne 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's my fault. I missed the first instance of her name and added Slate to the second use.  I would like to know what the solution to this would be and I don't mind if it's removed if that is found to be the best answer. Hewinsj 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The opener
This is the opener as it stands at present:


 * 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans, and is a semi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. The film is directed by Zack Snyder with Frank Miller attached as an executive producer and consultant, and was shot mostly with bluescreen to duplicate the imagery of the original comic book.


 * Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fight to the last man against Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his army of more than one million soldiers, while in Sparta, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support for her husband. The story is framed by a voice-over narrative by the Spartan soldier Dilios (David Wenham). Through this narrative technique, all manner of fantastical creatures are introduced, placing 300 within the genre of historical fantasy.


 * 300 was released in both conventional and IMAX theaters in America on March 9, 2007. The film broke box office records, although critics were divided over its look and style. Some acclaimed it as an original achievement, while others accused it of favoring visuals over characterization. Some controversy arose over its depiction of the ancient Persian and Greek civilizations.

Without addressing the wording (which I think is pretty good) I'd make the point that the wikilinking in parts here is somewhat too dense for easy reading, and probably unnecessarily so. Here's my attempt at weeding out redundant links. The wording is unchanged. The choice of which links to remove is a quite delicate one, and this attempt isn't intended to be definitive, but rather to demonstrate the removing some links may considerably improve readability. I have concentrated mainly on the opening sentence of the first paragraph, leaving only essential wikilinks. I would also suggest that the reference for the film The 300 Spartans does not belong in an opener. Detail and references should be expanded within the body of the article.


 * 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans, and is a semi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. The film is directed by Zack Snyder with Frank Miller attached as an executive producer and consultant, and was shot mostly with bluescreen to duplicate the imagery of the original comic book.


 * Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fight to the last man against Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his army of more than one million soldiers, while in Sparta, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support for her husband. The story is framed by a voice-over narrative by the Spartan soldier Dilios (David Wenham). Through this narrative technique, all manner of fantastical creatures are introduced, placing 300 within the genre of historical fantasy.


 * 300 was released in both conventional and IMAX theaters in America on March 9, 2007. The film broke box office records, although critics were divided over its look and style. Some acclaimed it as an original achievement, while others accused it of favoring visuals over characterization. Some controversy arose over its depiction of the ancient Persian and Greek civilizations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

--Tony Sidaway 17:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Complete agreement. I've always been opposed to excessive wikilinking. --Javits2000 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that you want to de-link Frank Miller? I would think that wiki-link to the author of the source material is pretty relevant. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He's linked in the second sentence along with his ties to the film's production, which makes sense, I think. I also agree the delinking is less taxing on the reader; thumbs up. María: ( habla  con migo ) 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't catch that. Isn't it abnormal to wiki-link something later in a particular passage rather than at the earliest chance? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's very unusual, and I'm not very happy with it. It may be going too far. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Other than that, I don't have a problem with de-linking the common words. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've edited the opener. Beside not moving the Frank Miller link to the occurrence of his name in the second sentence, I have also opted to keep the IMAX wikilink.  I think the reference to the older film which inspired the graphic novel should probably be moved to the interior of the article, but I haven't done that in this edit. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good edit, and I agree with both of those keeps. I also agree with moving the 300 spartans reference into the body of the article at some point, if the "semi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae" stays in the opening. Hewinsj 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact I'm not sure 300 Spartans needs to be mentioned in here at all. There's no indication it served as direct inspiration for the film, and if Miller was inspired by it, that's a matter for the page on the comic. --Javits2000 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (indent reduced) I've no objection to that. Let's see what others say. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've no objection, either. The de-tribbling of the wikilinks is a good idea. Nice work, Tom. :) Arcayne 21:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the wiki-linking for the actors is completely unnecessary. They're on the sidebar as well as in the Cast section.67.183.63.236 01:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

106 references and counting
This is a three-week-old film and the article now has many more references than our articles on great films such as Citizen Kane or controversial films such as A Clockwork Orange. There are more references on this article than on the article 2003 invasion of Iraq. This isn't necessarily a deficiency, but I do think it's worth considering that this article may be over-referenced. --Tony Sidaway 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can an article be over-referenced? I'm beginning to have the same fears with Transformers, and I think this may well be due to modern films citing lots of drip-fed internet news articles rather than say, a book or magazine article. Alientraveller 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are minor issues with historical authenticity and there seems to be a bit of a beef about the depiction of the classical Greeks and Persians. But for instance there are about 23 references in the "Depiction of Persians" section.  This is almost certainly more than is strictly necessary to depict the breadth of reaction in Iran, and the forest of references makes the piece quite difficult to read.  Readers read an encyclopedia for a digest of the information, and the references are really only there for two reasons: to satisfy our verifiability requirements and to give the reader a starting place to look further himself.  --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting point. Two ways to approach it: either trim references that aren't actually necessary for the information in the text (for example, stacked references, of which there are a few under "depictions") or find a few more expansive sources that gather a lot of the information we're providing here. Or, of course, the third option: trim unnecessary information, and the citations go with it.
 * Some of this will settle out with time; for example, box office numbers rely on a number of different citations at present, which can be reduced dramatically when the theatrical release is over.
 * The flip side is that an article like this serves as interesting archive of contemporary accounts and responses (an auxiliary function, to be sure). This is only possible because of the electronic media we're using -- the equivalent for Clockwork Orange would be a musty old file of press clippings. --Javits2000 19:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a useful function. I'm just concerned that now it is edging the primary function to the sidelines.  Most readers come here to be brought up to speed on the film, and that's what encyclopedias are for. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We've got a splitter
Historical accuracy of the film 300. Hmm. María: ( habla con migo ) 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Poof. It was speedily deleted. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I love it when that happens. María: ( habla  con migo ) 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who was that masked man? Arcayne 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Das Baz, who signs his comments as "Erudil". He's argued here about the historical inaccuracies before, and I suppose he tried to circumvent the consensus that was set up here regarding the extent of coverage for the inaccuracies. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring to you, and the way you had handled it so swiftly. lol. Arcayne 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Snyder / accuracy
The same user has twice now  deleted the "90 percent accurate" line and replaced it w/ a link to YouTube. I reverted the first time around; but maybe I'm missing the inherent merits of the contribution. --Javits2000 20:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone should message the good man, and find out,. I don't get his objections either, and am a bit put out that he didn;t bring his issues here first. Arcayne 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The youtube link is to a BBC news spot about the Iranian controversy, and at one point in the spot Snyder is quoted saying that people shouldn't take 300 too seriously because he made it as a fantasy. It would be more helpful if the user came here to talk about it, but I assume he must think the direct quote in the video trumps the 90% accuracy sentence from the MTV interview. The sentence he keeps adding seems to indicate that, but isn't worded in a way that makes the intent behind it clear.  It sounds more like he's talking to someone rather than sounding encyclopedic.
 * I noticed there was some bad punctuation after he made one of his edits so while I was cleaning that up I replaced the "90% sentence" and included the "work of fantasy" quote toward the end of that paragraph as it seemed to follow the flow of what was already stated. I also don't know the policy on citing Youtube videos, so I left it as is. Any opinion on my edit here? Hewinsj 22:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think YouTube is the most appropriate medium to present the BBC news story, even though BBC is valid. I think it would be better to find a link to the video on BBC's site itself or even better, an online news article.  Videos like those may infringe on copyrights of these corporations. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried searching the BBC's news site for reference to this, but they don't seem to index news broadcasts, and recycle their news feed fairly frequently. I would like to more correctly cite a source on this, but at the moment I've given up.  All I can think is that it happened on or before March 22nd, as that's when the youtube video was posted.Hewinsj 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this? He mentions the "work of fantasy" bit. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The original was the same statement, but in a video of him standing on the read carpet. In my opinion your new source would do the job, as it's basically the same thing. Hewinsj 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know why this is even an issue. 300 is not even close to a documentary--it is openly acknowledged to be the dramatization of comic book--so issues of veracity are moot. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition (Farrokh Part 2)
I would like to add the following addition to the article:

Doctor Kaveh Farrokh criticized the films saying:


 * How would members of other ethnic communities worldwide feel if their ancestors were being portrayed as monsters, troglodytes, degenerates, and demons? These same producers would probably think twice if they were to portray other nationalities in the manner that they have done with the “Persians”. If my logic (flawed as it may be) is not mistaken, portraying Iranians as monsters, troglodytes, degenerates, and demons is “artistic entertainment”, but other nationalities are exempt from this “art form” as this would be “tasteless and politically incorrect” and would be regarded as a “hate crime”.
 * The targeting of specific ethnic groups with negative attributes in the name of entertainment dollars is dangerously misinformed and irresponsible. As noted earlier in this commentary, viewers and media outlets (especially in the English-speaking world) are already interpreting much of the movie in a “historical” light.  The Greco-Persian wars evoke very intense emotions in northwest European culture, in some ways even more so than in modern-day Greece and Italy.  The movie 300 has successfully capitalized on those very emotions in the quest for profit.

Just wanted to achieve consensus before adding that. --Aminz 05:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the addition necessary. We already cover the criticism and accuracy disputes well and are trying to keep the size down here.  Thanks anyway.  The Behnam 05:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point would be valid if you could show me where this criticism is already included in the article. --Aminz 05:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, I recommend you read the article, especially 300 (film). We have covered criticism.  The Behnam 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's be more clear. Farrokh is making the following criticisms. Please point me to the lines (or otherwise please copy/paste from the article) in which the article makes the same criticisms. Thank you.
 * 1. For the filmmakers, portraying Iranians as monsters, troglodytes, degenerates, and demons is “artistic entertainment”, but other nationalities are exempt from this “art form” as this would be “tasteless and politically incorrect” and would be regarded as a “hate crime”.
 * 2.As noted earlier in this commentary, viewers and media outlets (especially in the English-speaking world) are already interpreting much of the movie in a “historical” light.
 * 3.The Greco-Persian wars evoke very intense emotions in northwest European culture, in some ways even more so than in modern-day Greece and Italy. The movie 300 has successfully capitalized on those very emotions in the quest for profit.
 * Thank you --Aminz 06:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you had been following events at this page you would know that we have already decided to use Daryaee instead of Farrokh. The Behnam 06:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't been. Would you please kindly point me to the relevant section where this particular discussion is done. I would like to know the reasons for using Daryaee instead of Farrokh. --Aminz 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I searched for Farrokh in the archives but couldn't find anything. Can you please show me the discussion. --Aminz 06:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to have occurred at User talk:Arcayne. The Behnam 07:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the link. Well, per WP:RS and Attribution policies, wikipedia is not about "truth"; it is about attributability to notable sources. Farrokh is notable as a critic of 300 film. This convention is followed in many other articles I have been involved in like "Criticism of X" articles. Many of these articles use known critics as sources (some of which do not even have any formal education on those issues but are notable as critics). If Farrokh is making an untrue claim, his view can be neutralized using other reliable sources. Please also take a look at Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ--Aminz 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * More to the point, the proposed "edit" is a two-paragraph-long block-quote. No other critic gets that much space in the article -- I see no reason why Farrokh should. And just because his arguments haven't been included in the article doesn't mean that they must be. We have no obligation to include every clever rhetorical turn that has been used to praise or to damn, nor could we.--Javits2000 07:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Javit, I am not asking that we add the quotes word by word. That's a valid point. We can summerize them. But their exclusion for no reason is against the main pillars of wikipedia, I believe. --Aminz 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's start from the beginning. In what section would you place these observations from Farrokh? They're not directly addressing historical accuracy or the depictions of Persians; they seem to be his personal observations about Hollywood films and about the reception of the movie. The question, for example, "to whom is Thermopylae important" seems to me off-topic for an article about the film; in any case I have no idea how you would establish that it's somehow more vital in Finland than in Greece. --Javits2000 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my summary which could be placed in the Depictions of Persians section, after "Critics have suggested that this is meant to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army." and before "Film critic Dimitris Danikas has suggested that the film portrays Persians as":


 * "Farrokh states that the filmmakers consider such portrayal of the ancestors of Iranians to be an “artistic entertainment” while application of this “art form” to other nationalities is considered “tasteless and politically incorrect”, and a “hate crime”. Evoking very intense emotions in northwest European culture, the movie capitalizes the Greco-Persian wars in its quest for profit Farrokh says. Farrokh belives that many viewers and media outlets interpret much of the movie in a “historical” light."


 * --Aminz 02:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a rather extensive piece of writing to draw from one reviewer. I suggest making it more succinct. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am open to suggestions. Well, I shortened it to be of the same size as that of the quotes from others. The main points of his comment are the following. If you could shorten the summary while keeping this main point, that would be great:


 * 1. For the filmmakers, portraying Iranians as monsters, troglodytes, degenerates, and demons is “artistic entertainment”, but other nationalities are exempt from this “art form” as this would be “tasteless and politically incorrect” and would be regarded as a “hate crime”.
 * 2.As noted earlier in this commentary, viewers and media outlets (especially in the English-speaking world) are already interpreting much of the movie in a “historical” light.
 * 3.The Greco-Persian wars evoke very intense emotions in northwest European culture, in some ways even more so than in modern-day Greece and Italy. The movie 300 has successfully capitalized on those very emotions in the quest for profit.
 * Thanks --Aminz 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * # 2 and #3 seem to be opinion conveyed as fact. I don't mean to dissect it with my own POV, but it seems that #1 is most suitable.  It's the reviewer's own opinion, while #2 and #3 seem to go beyond the depiction of Persians, which is the subsection in which you want to include Farrokh's perspective.  What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I would agree that #1 is suitable for that section. #2 and #3 might be relevant to other sections but not the depictions. Erik, the full quote for number 1 is this:
 * "How would members of other ethnic communities worldwide feel if their ancestors were being portrayed as monsters, troglodytes, degenerates, and demons? These same producers would probably think twice if they were to portray other nationalities in the manner that they have done with the “Persians”. If my logic (flawed as it may be) is not mistaken, portraying Iranians as monsters, troglodytes, degenerates, and demons is “artistic entertainment”, but other nationalities are exempt from this “art form” as this would be “tasteless and politically incorrect” and would be regarded as a “hate crime”."
 * My summary is this:
 * "Farrokh states that if my logic (flawed as it may be) is not mistaken, the filmmakers consider such portrayal of the ancestors of Iranians to be an “artistic entertainment”, while application of this “art form” to other nationalities is considered “tasteless and politically incorrect”, and a “hate crime”.
 * I am open to your suggestions. --Aminz 06:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are those the best statements that can be culled from the Farrokhe article? numbers 2 and three are pretty much opinion (unusable, as he is a professor of Near Eastern history, and neither a sociologist nor a professor of European histoical anthropology or economics), so of course #1 is going to stick out as being the more acceptable. Perhaps more alternatives can be found, as I remember the article being quite long. Let's not settle for a pig in a poke. Arcayne 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the most useful statements in the Farrokh article have to do with the military apparel and strategy of the Achaemenids. Since points to this effect have often come up here in talk, and we haven't found a way to include them in the article yet, I have suggested before (but good luck finding it in the archive) using Farrokh on this unless / until we could come up with a better source. This has to do quite literally with "the depiction of Persians." The following passage from Farrokh could be summarized: "The 300 movie displayed the equipment of the Spartans relatively well, considering that the producers were intent on reproducing the images of a comic book, leaving little room for consultation with modern scholarship. If the portrayal of the Greek side was adequate, that of “the Persians” was pure fantasy."
 * The point about other ethnic groups, hate crimes, etc., strikes me as purely speculative, and I think it would be fairly easy to find counterexamples. The fact that he reaches back to some Chuck Norris film from the '80s is not encouraging; if we're dealing with 80's action films, any number of unpleasant ethnic stereotypes could be cited (African-Americans, Arabs, Japanese, etc.) could be cited, and I see no reason to suggest that Iranians have been singled out. For contemporary use of ethnic caricatures for entertainment, see, just for one example, the Bavarians in Beerfest. --Javits2000 08:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that seems more or less acceptable to me. However, because the archiving was undone, we now have two separate lines of discussion about essentially the same topic. Arcayne 08:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true that point #1 is an speculation but it is a common speculation among Iranians. It might be wrong but I too share that feeling. Ancient persian kings like Cyrus, Xerxes are somewhat the symbols of honors and big figures for Iranians. These people are shown in the worst ever possible lights. Yes, I too speculate that other figures held in honor by a nation (like Abraham, Isaac for Jews, Christians, and Muslims or Budda for Buddists) are not easily showns as devils in western cinema. Prove me wrong otherwise. So, such speculation, even if wrong, is not uncommon among persians (and as such it deserves mentioning). That's my logic. --Aminz 06:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the last bit of convo in Farrokhe 2
(in response to the idea that westerners wouldn't truck with the making fun of our own religious icons):

I would submit that Dogma, The Prophecy and innumerable comedy skits and comics that make fun of Jesus and Christianity or paint it in quite a dark light, up to and including equating the resurrection with the reanimation of a vampire (no kidding) - all of it with nary a bleat of anguish. the reason why is simple - they are recognized as not being real, and therefore not attacks on current ideas. The Herodotus account makes the persians look bad, and Miller went a step further and made them look bad. the film is widely complimented and acclaimed for its faithful reproduction of the comic. I would further submit that people need to grow a thicker skin:


 * Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
 * Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.
 * Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
 * Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor.    -A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas (1)

Funny how apt that seems to be. :) Arcayne 06:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Accurate historical images
I am in the process of getting copyright permission for the following images.

--Aminz 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But will we actually use these in the article? The Behnam 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the section, 300film#Depiction_of_Persians, it would be good to provide the historically accurate depictions of Persian soldiers. This is directly relevant to the point of the critics. --Aminz 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we can use them on the basis of fair use policy and Help:Image page-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, we should let the readers know why the pictures presented in the movie are not accurate; and why the critics are complaining. --Aminz 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, we aren't here to 'refute' the movie. I believe we have an external link that addresses this very issue so we don't need to go adding more pictures into the article.  Anyway, if we did, it would suffice to just show a picture of Xerxes instead of two fictional pictures of Achaemenian officers.  The Behnam 07:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we don't want to refute the movie. We want to explain the case as accurately and informatively as possible. If facts refute the movie, we let them do and if they support, we let them do. The fictional pictures are showing the dressing of persians. We can add the real picture of Xerxes and what movie showed as well. The very fact that a review of the movie presents these images to clarify its reasonings legitimizes their usage. These images are informative for those who have no idea about ancient persia.--Aminz 07:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aminz, the images are a good idea. --Mardavich 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sound like you are trying to bolster the critics by selecting images. The Behnam 07:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm in favor of including a link to Farrokh's article -- which someone appears recently to have added -- I don't think the images are necessary. This isn't an article about ancient Iranian military apparel, nor is the film a costume drama. --Javits2000 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We already have an external link that deals with the topic from chasingthefrog. These additions are completely unnecessary and seem to serve POV purposes.  The Behnam 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The pictures are certainly on-topic. And yes, they are explaining the views of critics. I just had a look at the section and it is all about the views of critics. It would be consistent with the text there. If you think the section is not neutral, please add a POV tag to it, and find positive stuff about how good the depictions were and add images supporting the that. Please see also Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ--Aminz 08:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That clearly applies to text. We aren't here to select images to help out the arguments of the critics.  The Behnam 08:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:The_Behnam, why did you remove Dr Farokh's article from external links? He's a published author, you can't censor published material from an academic just because you don't like the author or the work. --Mardavich 08:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it because we already had a accuracy-addressing external link from chasingthefrog. The Behnam 08:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we are not supposed to take side with the critics. The images are supposed to clarify what the text says. The intro of the section says:
 * "Since its opening, 300 has attracted controversy over its portrayal of ancient Persians. Various critics, experts, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[88] have denounced the film.[89][90][91][92] As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes is portrayed as androgynous.[93][94] Critics have suggested that this is meant to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army.[95]"
 * This is all about critical reactions. The images for this section are supposed to make this clear. If you think this intro is not neutral, please feel free to neutralize it through sources describing how wonderful persian depictions were. In front of the related paragraphs, we can include the pictures presented by those sources. --Aminz 08:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No "Behnam", that's no sufficient reason to remove a critical article from an academic. The article should be restored in the external links. --Mardavich 08:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to restore it. We have already covered the criticism, including those from academics.  You shouldn't make a big deal of this just because your pet academic isn't in there.  Oh, and the quotes again, I still remember from last time and I will continue to remember incivilities.  But yeah, we aren't going to have every academic's opinion linked here.  Sorry.  The Behnam 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm affraid that's not up to you to decide, see WP:OWN. --Mardavich 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm well I'm afraid that I haven't been the only one who thinks that we shouldn't link every criticism in the world to this page. Also, I and others addressed Farrokh elsewhere and decided that Daryaee was most appropriate.  Sorry to break to you, buddy.  The Behnam 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Behnam, it's not up to you to decide what source is most appropriate or not. We're having a discussion here, and you're alone in opposing Farokh as a source. --Mardavich 09:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he's not alone in opposing Farokh. Not is he alone in determining what sources are going to be used - just as you are not, either. The article isn't to be a clearing house for every Tom, Doc and Harriet who's got ants in their pants about this film. We need to limit the arguments in the article about historical accuracy, depiction of Persians, whatever to only the ones that are succint in their criticisms of the film. I think that number should be two. Whatever number we arrive at, it needs to be made clear that while the controversy about the film is a part of the film, it is not the most important part of it, or even the third most important part of it. The sooner you realize that, the better off your relationship with other editors is foing to be. Mardavich, you need to take a very deep breath and assume good faith, sir. You are going to find in Wikipedia that many, many, many people are going to disagree with you and your edits. When that happens, it is not a call for you to cry OWN, bad faith, RfC or whatever. Sometimes, you are going to be outvoted by the majority opinion. It's called concensus, and if you cannot learn to work within this structure, then perhaps you need to find a new hobby. This is not a new behavior pattern, but virtually every editor who has put in substantial work to the article has felt the accusational tone of your comments. Please, knock it off. Arcayne 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate your aggressive tone and personal comments about me, watch out for civility please. --Mardavich 10:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might remember to extend that tone and civility to other editors. It is certainly not civil to accuse other editors of having OWN issues without basis. You get what you give, so consider that you were given a taste of your own remarks. I will remain civil, but you certainly need to make more of an effort as well. Let's not have to talk about this again. Arcayne 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this issue of military apparel, hairstyles, etc. seems constantly to come up, I would be in favor of adding a single line on the subject under "depictions of Persians" (which after all at present says relatively little about the actual depictions of Persians), probably citing Farrokh, which is the best source anyone has come up with. Something to the effect that, "While an effort was made to depict the Spartan soldiers in a historically accurate fashion, the apparel worn by the Persian soldiers is completely fantastic." But I do not think the images are appropriate. --Javits2000 08:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can not see any valid justification for removal of the images. I think we need to ask the views of  respected and experienced members of the community. --Aminz 08:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Removal? Wait, they were put in? The Behnam 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your general position, Isn't it?--Aminz 10:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I say that they should never have been put in without discussing it with us here first. They are not non-notable, and concensus had been arrived at at least three times before that they should not be included. Arcayne 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you do not determine if there is a consensus or not. That's up to the community to decide. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so majority doesn't mean consensus. --Mardavich 10:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What he means is: Mardavich is the Consensus. The Behnam 10:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pray tell, my fine young gentleman - how do you interpret consensus? Arcayne 11:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this absurd. What are we even debating? Whether to cite Farrokh, to add him as a link, or to use his images? We have to set the terms of the debate before we decide whether or not there's "consensus." I'll restate that I would be opposed to using his images -- you might as well put in a photo of Greece to show that the sky isn't fire-red. I also agree with Benham & Arcayne that Daryaee is a far better source for the main article, and that to add a paragraph from Farrokh would simply be redundant. After all, we're not citing every neo-con who thinks it's a glorious defense of Western Civ; Hanson suffices for that. I would however support adding a link to Farrokh's essay. --Javits2000 11:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I think that Farrokhe's statements are not all that cohesive, and that it is a mistake to include them, I could live with their inclusdion as an external link. To be clear, the external link are isn't going to be this portal for every review. Farrokhe has hostorical things to say, and that's why it has more steam over say, a petition link or whatever. Arcayne 11:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should we include Farrokh? The current one (frog-something) is more to-the-point in both its visuals and text, and lacks the questionable personal anecdotes and Cyrus-propaganda and women-officer propaganda. The Behnam 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dr Farokh is a published author and a reliable source, that's why, your opinion about his academic work, or "propaganda" as you're labeling it, is irrelevant. --Mardavich 11:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well as of yet, there is no good argument for inclusion as we already have included other reports that were deemed more appropriate in previous conversations. The Behnam 11:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kaveh Farrokh is an expert on Persian history with published books dealing the subject, so his perspective and expertise is important as far as the historical accuracy of the depiction of the Persians is concerned. --Mardavich 11:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But we already have covered the area, with sources that everyone could agree on. Unless you object to Daryaee?  The Behnam 11:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Benham is correct. We already have a Persian expert's comments, and he's an author as well. Farokh says nothing that Daryaee doesn't say better, and the latter doesn't have the anecdotal and prejudicial baggage that Farrokhe does. Farrokh shouldn't be included. I am thinking that his inclusion as an external link could be for further exploration, or whatever, but no statements should be included, as it opens the door to inclusion of his less than RS commentary. Arcayne 11:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell me, which guideline or policy sets a limit on the amount of external links provided. If you believe undue weight is given to a particular view, we can provide a link to the opposing view. So far you have assumed that Farrokh is some how biased and lesser than Daryaee. Although this may be your view, you must prove before enacting it. We cannot chose one author over the other for personal reasons. Even if you believe they are so different in quality, should not both of the critical views be given? After all, not all people who are critical of the film's historic accuracy share the same complaints. For these reasons, Farrokh's article should be included in the External links. Agha Nader 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Just another opinion re: the images: though different then the ones others have attempted to add to the article in the past, are still irrelevant. Similar to the argument some of us have already made about the Xerxes wall carving that a bent user kept adding, this film is not meant to be historically accurate. Pictures pointing out how the film is wrong, wrong, wrong, when we already have a number of quotes pointing this out, is unnecessary. It would make the article (which is about a fantasty film, by the way) one-sided. We are not here to judge. If anything, we should be looking for more pictures to represent the film, not history. María: ( habla con migo ) 12:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This film Is About history and Persians and brave Spartas.We must explain about reality not some thing wrong.we must find the true way not the way show in the film

[] Xerxes Pictures from Perspolis has Long beard and long clothes but what can show reality except pictures of perspolis.

hm, since the movie isn't even pretending to be historically accurate, there isn't really much to refute. If you want to check the movies accuracy, check it against the graphic novel, not against history. Everyone knows the movie doesn't even try to depict historical Persians or Greeks, the article already says so, so what's the point? dab (𒁳) 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some notable critical reviews use these pictures to express what they mean and show the graphical distortions. A couple of paragraphs in the "Depictions of Persians" are the arguments of critics. In front of those paragraph, the suggestion was to, insert the images provided by those critics. This would grant the critics to express themselves both in words and in images. Moreover, i think such pictures are cool :) --Aminz 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a care to the Xerxes throne this is very simple and with no despotism--Soroush vs 13:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Who khows about what Xerxes has in their hands in picture? What does it show? A stick and a cup

Lead
Per WP:Lead, the lead should touch all main points of the article and it alone should be self-independent. --Aminz 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To my mind, it has accomplished that. Arcayne 05:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The 'portrayal' criticism is summarized by "As well, some controversy arose over its depiction of the ancient Persian and Greek civilizations."  We don't need more details, especially for something that has a life outside of its criticism.  The Behnam 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has a section on historical accuracy. So, it should mention its summary in the intro. 2. This film has been very controversial(more than many other films); there were a lot of objections to it; the intro doesn't reflect that. --Aminz 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't really the change the 'some' of "some controversy" without being POV. Perhaps if we eliminate "some" it will give it more of a 'general' sense.  Will that appease you?  The Behnam 05:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, controversy over its "depiction of ancient Greek and Persian civilizations" is just about the same thing as "historical accuracy", though I may experiment to clarify this. The Behnam 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my suggestion: One paragraph should be given to critics and one paragraph to those who praise. That would be fair given the huge controversies over this article. In the critical paragraph, I'll summerize historical inaccuracy criticisms and other points in details instead of saying there is some criticisms here and there. I'll leave the praise paragraph for other editors to write. --Aminz 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this assessment. I think that your assertion that the controversy generated by this movie is "huge." It simply isn't. It's upsetting a ethnic segment, and that is addressed int he Lead. Please do not change parts of the article without concensus or after discussion has concluded on the subject. Arcayne 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to change it right now but I can add neutrality tag to the intro. And yes, it produced a lot of controversy. The very fact that many iranians including differnet parts of Iranian government reacted shows that. --Aminz 05:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A little bit more on this; while I feel you do have a point that the historical accuracy and deptiction of ancient Persians sections are essentially the same thing, the controversy is not such that people are holding protest marches, sit-ins and burning effigies of WB execs. That would warant specific mention in the Lead. We are enjoined by the MOS to include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism. This we have done, paying note of the controversy regarding the depictions of ancient Persians, but without going into detail. If anything, we have missed pointing out the rather noteworthy reaction of the Iranian government. However, I do not feel this requires the major reworking of the lead that you suggest, and in fact would go into more detail than this article allows it, while no attention has been paid to production and the like.
 * Tags are not meant to express dissent, but to point our a valid concern. If you are claiming bias, then come out and say it. And regardng the level of controversy this movie has generated, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Yes, the movie has offended Iranians, causing the Iranian government to react. Yes, its noteworthy. Does this constitute 10 kilos of controversy in a 5 kilo bag? I think that's is an enormous exaggeration. Please cite the riots in the streets of Japan, China, Russia, Brazil and other places where folk are running about seeting things on fire. Since I am almost positive that isn't forthcoming, its probably better to not make a mountain out of a molehill.Arcayne 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a change to the Lead that I am hoping addresses some of these concerns. Arcayne 06:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've reverted it. Not all of this controversy was from Iranians, and Iranians are still known as Persians.  The Behnam 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries; the convoluted psyche issues in play were pointed out to me. Arcayne 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was reading this debate, and though I agree and disagree with some of the arguments on both sides, I don't see how a definition of controversy over movie should have rise people in the streets. Did people in Japan walk the streets for the controversial Borat movie? I think not, what I am sure is that the movie wikipedia page does include Controversy heading, and it is rate GA Class. I think the movie may not be as controversial as claimed but certainly enough controversial to have its own heading in the article. I've made this point clear before, while discussing something else, and though my point was appreciated (at least not disapproved by anyone) it dissolved through the responses that I got. I still think we should have separate heading for controversy and not under Reception --siavash 06:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Borat is I think a different case; glancing over that page I see that the controversy was multifold, including objections from the (involuntary) "actors"; lawsuits; the Kazakh response; objections by Roma and Jewish groups; and numerous outright bans. We haven't reached that degree of complexity with 300. I think it makes sense to split off "controversy" from "reception" only if the latter, so to speak, exceeds the bounds of or threatens to overwhelm the former. In fact I would in general feel that to give the "controversy" its own section is to marginalize / trivialize it; it's like saying "here are the normal responses, and here are the crazy ones."

By the way, it's considered polite to sign your entries in the normal fashion, with four tildes (~). Best, --Javits2000 19:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued
WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

Let's see the sections this article has: "

2 Cast

3 Production

4 Soundtrack

5 Marketing

6 Reception

6.1 Box office

6.2 Critical reaction

6.3 Historical accuracy

6.4 Political aspects

6.5 Depiction of Persians"

I would like to know the particular sentences which present a concise overview of these sections.

The article says: "Some controversy arose over its depiction of the ancient Persian and Greek civilizations."

Is this a "concise overview" of Depiction of Persians? I don't think so. This sentence is not informative. Adding a few words makes it informative and concise:

Some controversy arose over its depiction of the ancient Persian as a barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes as a androgynous man and Greek civilizations as ?

Let's start from this last suggestion: i.e. a concise summary of the "Depiction of Persians" section. --Aminz 06:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a summary, it's a direct quote from the section. I suggest that the present sentence is concise and informative; anyone who wants more details will find them by using their scroll-bar. --Javits2000 08:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually not. It is not informative, it is vague. "There is some controversy about pictures" Well, what specific kind of controversy? Does the movie depict persians as angels? Does it show them nude? This sentence doesn't have any precison and hence is not concise. I don't know who passed this article for WP:Good article.
 * What I added was what I believed to be a precise statement of the controversy. A precise summary of the section. --Aminz 08:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The acknowledgment of controversy is sufficient for the lead, IMO. Anyone who is in doubt as to its nature will quickly be enlightened, as already stated, through use of the scroll bar. You could make these same points about any line in the lead, for example "the film broke box office records": well, what box office records did it break? in America or abroad? or both? Luckily, the information is just a few column-inches away. --Javits2000 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:Lead says the intro should briefly describe its notable controversies. It doesn't say it should mention that there are criticisms. It should briefly describe them. --Aminz 08:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this interpretation, To begin with, there is more than one kind of controversy about this film, and brevity is far more important to the lead than specificity. Stating that there is controversy allows the reader to know what's coming up without going into detail. In our GA interview, the Lead was one of the parts that were considered very strong. Therefore, I say we leave it alone. Don't fix what ain't broke. Arcayne 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. The lead summarizes, it does not go into minute detail.  If we were to point out every issue (which we would have to do if one thing is mentioned, people would complain why other things are not mentioned), of which there are many issues, then the lead would bloat and we would have to again beat it down into submission with a baseball bat.  And I didn't bring my bat to work with me, alas.  The lead is fine the way it is for now.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The intro should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Is there any particular reason why you strongly object addition of a couple of words making the sentences more precise. The intro says: There is some controversy about its depiction of the ancient Persian" Well, what specific kind of controversy? Does the movie depict persians as angels? Adding a few more words make this clear: its depiction of the ancient Persian as a barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes as a androgynous man. See a few words make things much clear. --Aminz 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not semi-historical, fictional per producers of the movie
The lead states that the movie is a "semi-historical account of battle of Thermopylae" when the producer of the movie Warner Bros has clearly states that "The film 300 is a work of fiction inspired by the Frank Miller graphic novel and loosely based on a historical event.". I'm changing the lead accordingly. --Mardavich 06:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any reliable source saying it is "semi-historical"? If not, we can say "fictional". Otherwise we can say that according to X it is fictional and according to Y it is semi-historical. --Aminz 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it, but are we suggesting that the Battle of Thermopylae was a fictional event? that's quite a statement. The fact that there are fictional elements doesn't make the entire film fictional. If Leonidas and his merry band of grunts had pulled out light sabers and went to town on Ol' Baldy and company, then it would be fictional. Seeing as the main fictional elements of this story were the portrayals of the Persians, while leaving quite alone the actual events, the term "semi-historical" seems far more appropriate. I could posit other ideas as to why fictional is offered, but that would not quite be AGF. Arcayne 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As well, when I reverted the statement fromt he article before, it was because major changes to the article (or intent) need to be discussed here first. This doesn't mean that an editor posts their point of view and then proceeds to add the change which they know will be met with opposition. Please play fair. I will be reverting the change yet again. Please be so good as to allow other editors to discuss the change as well. Arcayne 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are my suggestion: "a semi-fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480" This would be more faithful to Warner Bros's description of the film as "a work of fiction" and addresses Arcayne's point. --Aminz 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No Arcayne, it's not suggesting that the Battle of Thermopylae was a fictional event, it's clearly stating that this movie is a fictional account of Battle of Thermopylae. That's what the producers of the movie believe and that's what we should have in the lead. --Mardavich 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Arcayne means that a fiction is 100% non-historical. We can say "fictional but with some elements of truth". Another suggestion would be to use the term "mythical"(?). --Aminz 07:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think the Lead needs any work at all, I would like to hear why the two of you favor using a 'fictional' designator for the film, and why it would be better than 'semi-historical'. As it depicts a historical event, to my mind, that makes it at least partly historical. That the Persians and Greeks were depicted in more fantastical ways detracts from that historical value, and in fact it is those components which palce it in the realm of historical fantasy. That term cannot be applied to other semi-historical films like Braveheart, Troy, Alexander, and The Scarlet Pimpernel (although the film Hero does fit within that category). The fact that - despite the fantasy elements of the film, it is still about a hisotrical event. Therefore, the fictional descriptor do not apply. Arcayne 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We do quote the director as saying that the film is 90% factual if that helps. Hewinsj 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's do not do original research. We simply report. According to Warner Bros "The film 30 is a work of fiction" and according to the director the film is 90% factual. That's it. We simply report the both side and do not engage in interpretations on our part. --Aminz 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that Aminz, this talk page has been jumping around a little bit and I must have reposted this in a second thread. Personally I don't have anything invested in this argument, I just try to help out if I think I can re-word a section or fix grammar.  I saw these two points as a contradiction and that there is more than one POV on the subject from people involved in the production of the film.  I agree with what you say, just to stay neutral and report things as they develop.  That said I didn't think it would turn so ugly in the earlier thread, but this is the internet and some people care about it. Hewinsj 04:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand what this is all about. Lots of movies, while fictional, are historical or semi-historical.  Lawrence of Arabia (film) and Pearl Harbor (film) are pretty good examples of this.  Shakespeare's history plays show that the genre isn't at all new.   So arguing over whether it's semi-historical or fictional is beside the point.  It's both. Nobody is claiming that it's non-fiction or documentary. --Tony Sidaway 05:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Critical reaction section
This section contains the following sentence:


 * 300 was also warmly received by websites focusing on comics and video games. Comic Book Resources' Mark Cronan found the film compelling, leaving him "with a feeling of power, from having been witness to something grand."[67] IGN's Todd Gilchrist acclaims Zack Snyder as a cinematic visionary and the "possible redeemer of modern moviemaking."

This is off-topic and awkward. The heading of this section is "Critical reaction". Here is my suggestion:

We create a new section on "Warm receptions" or something like this and move the positive stuff there. The *critical reactions* can stay in critical reaction section. --Aminz 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article reads:

"In North America, critical reviews of 300 are divided, while polls of moviegoers indicate strong approval. On Rottentomatoes.com, it has a 61% approval rating from listed critics and 50% from its "Cream of the Crop."[63] On MetaCritic.com, 300 received a rating of 53/100 based on 33 reviews, resulting in "Mixed or Average Reviews" status.[64]"

I was wondering if the strong approval claim is actually sourced or is an editorial comment? We can present the facts 53/100 and 61% approval and let the readers decide whether it is a strong approval or not. If we have a reliable source for this conclusions from raw data, we can attribute it to the source. --Aminz 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Critical reaction means "wot the critics thought." Criticism can be a neutral term (as in "literary criticism"); it does not imply disapproval. The 53/100 and 61% figures relate, not to moviegoers, but to published reviews. --Javits2000 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Critical reaction means the "reactions" which were "critical". I suggest we rename this to "reviews". It is consistent with its lead: "Since its world premiere at the Berlin International Film Festival on February 14, 2007, in front of 1,700 audience members, 300 has received generally mixed reviews"
 * Javit. I am not saying it is "disapproval". I am saying "strong approval" seems to be an original research (please see WP:OR). We can present the raw data 53/100 and 61%. The readers can decide on their own whether this is a "strong approval" or not. --Aminz 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Critical is being used here in the sense of Webster 2b: "of or relating to the judgment of critics ." This is perfectly standard English usage.
 * Ok, I understand, the citation for the audience polls must have dropped out at some point; you're right, it is at present unsourced. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to replace; why don't you place a fact tag next to it, and we'll track something down? --Javits2000 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. In order to arrive at consensus faster, do you think if it would be okay to rename the section to "reviews"?
 * Thanks. I'll add fact tag to it for now. --Aminz 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a good catch. Nice one, Aminz. :) Arcayne 11:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I frankly don't think there's any reason to change it to "reviews." Criticism, critique, critical, are still understood in their original sense. Nobody thinks Kant had a problem with pure reason. --Javits2000 12:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving Soon
I will be archiving the Discussions in 8 hours or so (we're at 116kb), so please tie up the conversations above or begin new topic headers below (encapsulating the to-be-archived discussion from before). Arcayne 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not archive the ongoing discussions, there are unresolved matters that need discussing. --Mardavich 11:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course he won't archive the active discussions. The Behnam 11:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (sigh) No, I am not just going to cut off conversations still inline. I did suggest that those conversations could be concluded or continued under a new header below this section. That way, active conversations could continue, allowing for a smoother archive. Arcayne 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Critical reaction section
This section contains the following sentence:


 * 300 was also warmly received by websites focusing on comics and video games. Comic Book Resources' Mark Cronan found the film compelling, leaving him "with a feeling of power, from having been witness to something grand."[67] IGN's Todd Gilchrist acclaims Zack Snyder as a cinematic visionary and the "possible redeemer of modern moviemaking."

This is off-topic and awkward. The heading of this section is "Critical reaction". Here is my suggestion:

We create a new section on "Warm receptions" or something like this and move the positive stuff there. The *critical reactions* can stay in critical reaction section. --Aminz 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article reads:

"In North America, critical reviews of 300 are divided, while polls of moviegoers indicate strong approval. On Rottentomatoes.com, it has a 61% approval rating from listed critics and 50% from its "Cream of the Crop."[63] On MetaCritic.com, 300 received a rating of 53/100 based on 33 reviews, resulting in "Mixed or Average Reviews" status.[64]"

I was wondering if the strong approval claim is actually sourced or is an editorial comment? We can present the facts 53/100 and 61% approval and let the readers decide whether it is a strong approval or not. If we have a reliable source for this conclusions from raw data, we can attribute it to the source. --Aminz 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Critical reaction means "wot the critics thought." Criticism can be a neutral term (as in "literary criticism"); it does not imply disapproval. The 53/100 and 61% figures relate, not to moviegoers, but to published reviews. --Javits2000 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Critical reaction means the "reactions" which were "critical". I suggest we rename this to "reviews". It is consistent with its lead: "Since its world premiere at the Berlin International Film Festival on February 14, 2007, in front of 1,700 audience members, 300 has received generally mixed reviews"
 * Javit. I am not saying it is "disapproval". I am saying "strong approval" seems to be an original research (please see WP:OR). We can present the raw data 53/100 and 61%. The readers can decide on their own whether this is a "strong approval" or not. --Aminz 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Critical is being used here in the sense of Webster 2b: "of or relating to the judgment of critics ." This is perfectly standard English usage.
 * Ok, I understand, the citation for the audience polls must have dropped out at some point; you're right, it is at present unsourced. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to replace; why don't you place a fact tag next to it, and we'll track something down? --Javits2000 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. In order to arrive at consensus faster, do you think if it would be okay to rename the section to "reviews"?
 * Thanks. I'll add fact tag to it for now. --Aminz 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a good catch. Nice one, Aminz. :) Arcayne 11:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I frankly don't think there's any reason to change it to "reviews." Criticism, critique, critical, are still understood in their original sense. Nobody thinks Kant had a problem with pure reason. --Javits2000 12:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The section on "critical reactions" seems to me to write about "reactions" of the critics. Would you please let me know why you think "Review" is not appropriate? --Aminz 01:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)